[Callers] The Benefits of Difference (was: Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?)

[Jacob Nancy Bloom via Callers]

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Delia Clark via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> ​...
>


>  It will ultimately be a good thing if there is a generally accepted set
> of words (certainly not a strict requirement, but something that’s
> generally accepted across the country, if possible) that meet the range of
> criteria, along the lines of those suggested by Ron in his matrix.
>

​There is an assumption behind this statement which is often made, but
which I find very disturbing.

The assumption is that it is an unalloyed good thing for there to be
standardization.  This is the kind of thinking that led the Modern Western
Square Dance movement to standardize all of their calls, and all of their
teaching programs.  They wanted any square dancer to be able to go to any
square dance club in the country, or in the world, and immediately know
exactly what was meant by everything that was said.  There are some
advantages to that kind of standardization, especially if you happen to be
a globe-hopping square dancer who enjoys dancing hot hash, but it comes at
a tremendous cost.

It comes with a loss of the opportunity to experience, adapt t​o, and
appreciate regional differences.  I don't care about being able to go to a
new place just to find that things there are done in the same way that I'm
used to them being done back home.  I care about being able to go to new
places and learning the way things are done there.

What this means for the current discussion, from my point of view, is that
it's a good thing if dance callers and producers discuss the advantages and
disadvantages of using different terminology, and consider what language
will work best for their dance.  It would be a BAD thing if anyone switched
terminology JUST BECAUSE that's what other people were doing.

It may well be that a certain set of terms will become generally accepted
because it works better for the dancers in a lot of places.  It may well be
that dances which were written to be gender-neutral will be generally
accepted because they work better for the dancers in a lot of places.  In
the meantime, if you find yourself assuming that it would a good thing if
there was standardization across the country, please give some thought to
what advantage you are trying to achieve, and what the disadvantages would
be.

Jacob Bloom

Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?

[Maia McCormick via Callers]

I would just like to point out to the group that this topic was originally
very specific in scope. Ron asked a very specific question, and one of
concrete use for those of us who call gender-free, to which several people
responded to before the thread devolved into a discussion of whether or not
we should use gender neutral terminology in contra at all.

So I would urge folks, for all emails on this listserv but perhaps
especially those about gender-free terminology, to *answer the question
that was asked*. If you disagree with the premise of the question, then do
not respond to the thread, or if you feel you really must say something,
put your comments in a separate thread with a different topic. But if I ask
whether people prefer seitan or tempeh, responding with your opinions about
why vegetarianism is silly doesn't get us any further towards answering the
original question, and only serves to derail the conversation.

I completely understand people's exhaustion with large-scale debates about
whether or not we need gender-free terminology, what those role names
should be, etc. I also think these discussions are silly and that this
listserv will simply never reach a consensus on the topic. But these
discussions should not be conflated asking specific, concrete, and helpful
questions about gender-free terminology and calling. If we avoid turning
the latter into the former, maybe we can reduce listserv fatigue around
this topic.

Thanks,
Maia

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Michael Fuerst via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> If a our group of like minded people can't agree on terms to use when
> teaching relatively straightforward dances, can  we expect a nation to
> agree on such trivial issues like  use of force by police, national health
> insurance, income distribution, and money's influence in elections ??
>
> Michael Fuerst  802 N Broadway  Urbana IL 61801  217 239 5844
>
>
>
>   On Saturday, May 30, 2015 2:16 PM, Lewis Land via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>
> I agree with that most recent posting. There seem to be many sincere and
> earnest people out there who want to find the perfect solution for
> gender-free calling terms, but I doubt there will ever be consensus on this
> topic, and really, enough is enough. -Lewis Land
>
> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 12:00 PM, susanelberger via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> I do wonder whether this horse has been beaten to death.  I doubt that
> there will be agreement, and that's fine.  The topic has been on the list
> several times, and yes, I know I can ignore the postings, but enough seems
> to be more than enough.
>
>
>
>   --
>  *From:* Ron Blechner 
> *To:* Amy Wimmer 
> *Cc:* susanelberger ; callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> *Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2015 3:10 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?
>
> Care to branch off non-jet/ruby terms to a new email please?
> On May 29, 2015 2:45 PM, "Amy Wimmer via Callers" <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> I kinda like suns and moons better than lots of the other alternatives,
> for the same reasons Susan lists. Also, there's Sun Dance and Moon Dance,
> by Robert Cromartie: gents swing in Sun Dance and ladies swing in Moon
> Dance. A precedence, perhaps?
>
> -Amy
>
>
>
> On May 29, 2015, at 8:00 AM, susanelberger via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> I have used suns and moons for years, and prefer them because they have
> one syllable each, sound completely different from each other, and are easy
> for the dancers to remember.  I have never had any issue arise about gender
> bias from them.  The conversation about which gems to use does seem a bit
> too overthought to me.
>
> Susan Elberger
> Lowell, Massachusetts
>
>   --
>  *From:* Delia Clark via Callers 
> *To:* "" 
> *Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2015 6:52 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?
>
> Okay, this conversation, plus the lunch table at the Puttin’ On the Dance
> Conference in Ottawa are FINALLY getting me to give up clinging to moons
> and stars (the only non-gender term I’ve ever used, which I have liked with
> families and have found works well, but which I understand is too gender-y
> to be acceptable as the solution we’re looking for - dang!). I am herewith
> committing to trying out Jets and Rubies next weekend at a dance I’m
> calling for a wedding of two women. Will report back.
>
>
>
>
> On May 29, 2015, at 1:56 AM, P. Campbell via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> I like jets & rubies (and have used the terms) for a number of reasons.
> (Don't like gems for same reason about confusion).
>
> In a weird way, it's close enough to "lefts & rights" for me to have no
> trouble remembering who's who (with rubies starting with "r"), and,
> (apologies to those who might be offended)

Re: [Callers] Painting the bikeshed (was Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?)

[Aahz Maruch via Callers]

On Sat, May 30, 2015, Michael Fuerst via Callers wrote:
>
> If a our group of like minded people can't agree on terms to use
> when teaching relatively straightforward dances, can we expect a
> nation to agree on such trivial issues like use of force by police,
> national health insurance, income distribution, and money's influence
> in elections 

Actually, that may not be a good comparison.  There are two forces in
discussions like these that are both somewhat in opposition and somewhat
combining:

First is the tendency to "bikeshed" -- obsessing over trivial details
because we can.  (See the Wikipedia link below.)

The second tendency is to obsess over language because language matters.
If you need convincing of this, I strongly recommend reading _The
Everyday Language of White Racism_ by Jane Hill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law_of_triviality
-- 
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/
  <*>   <*>   <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html

Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?

[Michael Fuerst via Callers]

If a our group of like minded people can't agree on terms to use when teaching 
relatively straightforward dances, can  we expect a nation to agree on such 
trivial issues like  use of force by police, national health insurance, income 
distribution, and money's influence in elections ?? Michael Fuerst      802 N 
Broadway      Urbana IL 61801  217 239 5844 


 On Saturday, May 30, 2015 2:16 PM, Lewis Land via Callers 
 wrote:
   

 I agree with that most recent posting. There seem to be many sincere and 
earnest people out there who want to find the perfect solution for gender-free 
calling terms, but I doubt there will ever be consensus on this topic, and 
really, enough is enough. -Lewis Land
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 12:00 PM, susanelberger via Callers 
 wrote:

I do wonder whether this horse has been beaten to death.  I doubt that there 
will be agreement, and that's fine.  The topic has been on the list several 
times, and yes, I know I can ignore the postings, but enough seems to be more 
than enough.


  From: Ron Blechner 
 To: Amy Wimmer  
Cc: susanelberger ; callers 
 
 Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:10 PM
 Subject: Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?
   
Care to branch off non-jet/ruby terms to a new email please?On May 29, 2015 
2:45 PM, "Amy Wimmer via Callers"  wrote:



I kinda like suns and moons better than lots of the other alternatives, for the 
same reasons Susan lists. Also, there's Sun Dance and Moon Dance, by Robert 
Cromartie: gents swing in Sun Dance and ladies swing in Moon Dance. A 
precedence, perhaps?
-Amy



On May 29, 2015, at 8:00 AM, susanelberger via Callers 
 wrote:


I have used suns and moons for years, and prefer them because they have one 
syllable each, sound completely different from each other, and are easy for the 
dancers to remember.  I have never had any issue arise about gender bias from 
them.  The conversation about which gems to use does seem a bit too overthought 
to me.
Susan ElbergerLowell, Massachusetts
  From: Delia Clark via Callers 
 To: ""  
 Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 6:52 AM
 Subject: Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?
   
Okay, this conversation, plus the lunch table at the Puttin’ On the Dance 
Conference in Ottawa are FINALLY getting me to give up clinging to moons and 
stars (the only non-gender term I’ve ever used, which I have liked with 
families and have found works well, but which I understand is too gender-y to 
be acceptable as the solution we’re looking for - dang!). I am herewith 
committing to trying out Jets and Rubies next weekend at a dance I’m calling 
for a wedding of two women. Will report back.




On May 29, 2015, at 1:56 AM, P. Campbell via Callers 
 wrote:

I like jets & rubies (and have used the terms) for a number of reasons. (Don't 
like gems for same reason about confusion).
In a weird way, it's close enough to "lefts & rights" for me to have no trouble 
remembering who's who (with rubies starting with "r"), and, (apologies to those 
who might be offended), because it fits the same syllables for me as "gents & 
ladies" (which I use for historical dance) or "men & women".
For some reason I just can't get a feel for larks & ravens (I have an idea of 
why but not worth sharing), and I'm not at all comfortable using bands & bares.
For me, it's whatever will be the easiest for me to remember which side is 
which, and if my brain is wired to think of "jets" (black color) as more 
masculine and "rubies" (red color) as more feminine (so easier for me to link 
them to left & right), that's my mental visual process. (I tried apples & 
oranges once with a group of kids - it was terrible because I couldn't remember 
which was which side - I have to have some frame of reference).
I think one of the reasons I have trouble with larks & ravens is because of 
having learned a foreign language that has a gender for nouns, and I want to 
make larks the right side and ravens the left, but then the syllable structure 
doesn't work for me. 
My 2 cents.
Patricia



Sent from my iPhone
On May 28, 2015, at 3:51 PM, Alan Winston via Callers 
 wrote:


 

 
 On 5/28/15 12:30 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote:
  
 
For those interested in gender free contra dance terms:1. Do you like or 
dislike jets / rubies ?

 Like. (I'm responding on personal preference alone; I'm aware of some 
objections to this, which I don't personally share.)
 
 
 2. How would gems / rubies compare? 
 
 Less good, because the soft "ms" would make the call less clear.  Also, rubies 
_are_ gems, so this is confusing.
 
 -- Alan
 
___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net


<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>
Delia ClarkPO Box 45Taftsvi

Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?

[Lewis Land via Callers]

I agree with that most recent posting. There seem to be many sincere and
earnest people out there who want to find the perfect solution for
gender-free calling terms, but I doubt there will ever be consensus on this
topic, and really, enough is enough. -Lewis Land

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 12:00 PM, susanelberger via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> I do wonder whether this horse has been beaten to death.  I doubt that
> there will be agreement, and that's fine.  The topic has been on the list
> several times, and yes, I know I can ignore the postings, but enough seems
> to be more than enough.
>
>
>
>   --
>  *From:* Ron Blechner 
> *To:* Amy Wimmer 
> *Cc:* susanelberger ; callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> *Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2015 3:10 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?
>
> Care to branch off non-jet/ruby terms to a new email please?
> On May 29, 2015 2:45 PM, "Amy Wimmer via Callers" <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> I kinda like suns and moons better than lots of the other alternatives,
> for the same reasons Susan lists. Also, there's Sun Dance and Moon Dance,
> by Robert Cromartie: gents swing in Sun Dance and ladies swing in Moon
> Dance. A precedence, perhaps?
>
> -Amy
>
>
>
> On May 29, 2015, at 8:00 AM, susanelberger via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> I have used suns and moons for years, and prefer them because they have
> one syllable each, sound completely different from each other, and are easy
> for the dancers to remember.  I have never had any issue arise about gender
> bias from them.  The conversation about which gems to use does seem a bit
> too overthought to me.
>
> Susan Elberger
> Lowell, Massachusetts
>
>   --
>  *From:* Delia Clark via Callers 
> *To:* "" 
> *Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2015 6:52 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?
>
> Okay, this conversation, plus the lunch table at the Puttin’ On the Dance
> Conference in Ottawa are FINALLY getting me to give up clinging to moons
> and stars (the only non-gender term I’ve ever used, which I have liked with
> families and have found works well, but which I understand is too gender-y
> to be acceptable as the solution we’re looking for - dang!). I am herewith
> committing to trying out Jets and Rubies next weekend at a dance I’m
> calling for a wedding of two women. Will report back.
>
>
>
>
> On May 29, 2015, at 1:56 AM, P. Campbell via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> I like jets & rubies (and have used the terms) for a number of reasons.
> (Don't like gems for same reason about confusion).
>
> In a weird way, it's close enough to "lefts & rights" for me to have no
> trouble remembering who's who (with rubies starting with "r"), and,
> (apologies to those who might be offended), because it fits the same
> syllables for me as "gents & ladies" (which I use for historical dance) or
> "men & women".
>
> For some reason I just can't get a feel for larks & ravens (I have an idea
> of why but not worth sharing), and I'm not at all comfortable using bands &
> bares.
>
> For me, it's whatever will be the easiest for me to remember which side is
> which, and if my brain is wired to think of "jets" (black color) as more
> masculine and "rubies" (red color) as more feminine (so easier for me to
> link them to left & right), that's my mental visual process. (I tried
> apples & oranges once with a group of kids - it was terrible because I
> couldn't remember which was which side - I have to have some frame of
> reference).
>
> I think one of the reasons I have trouble with larks & ravens is because
> of having learned a foreign language that has a gender for nouns, and I
> want to make larks the right side and ravens the left, but then the
> syllable structure doesn't work for me.
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> Patricia
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 28, 2015, at 3:51 PM, Alan Winston via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/28/15 12:30 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote:
>
> For those interested in gender free contra dance terms:
> 1. Do you like or dislike jets / rubies ?
>
>
> Like. (I'm responding on personal preference alone; I'm aware of some
> objections to this, which I don't personally share.)
>
>  2. How would gems / rubies compare?
>
>
> Less good, because the soft "ms" would make the call less clear.  Also,
> rubies _are_ gems, so this is confusing.
>
> -- Alan
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>
>
> <>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>
>
> Delia Clark
> PO Box 45
> Taftsville

Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?

[Delia Clark via Callers]

I understand your weariness with this topic, as I found myself last winter just 
wanting to know The Answer, so I could start using it and we could move on. 

I have changed my perspective about this, though. Through joining in a 
roundtable luncheon conversation at Puttin’ On the Dance conference a few 
months ago, I came to see that this is a folk process, and will take time, as 
all folk process does. It will ultimately be a good thing if there is a 
generally accepted set of words (certainly not a strict requirement, but 
something that’s generally accepted across the country, if possible) that meet 
the range of criteria, along the lines of those suggested by Ron in his matrix. 
It matters a lot that we find words that are inclusive and understandable, at 
least.

I think that there is benefit to those folks who are working on this sharing 
their emerging ideas, and to the rest of us trying a few new things, keeping 
the dialogue alive, until it has become a non-question. We’re not there yet, 
but one day we’ll suddenly realize that we are!


> On May 30, 2015, at 2:00 PM, susanelberger via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> I do wonder whether this horse has been beaten to death.  I doubt that there 
> will be agreement, and that's fine.  The topic has been on the list several 
> times, and yes, I know I can ignore the postings, but enough seems to be more 
> than enough.
> 
> 
> 
> From: Ron Blechner 
> To: Amy Wimmer  
> Cc: susanelberger ; callers 
>  
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?
> 
> Care to branch off non-jet/ruby terms to a new email please?
> On May 29, 2015 2:45 PM, "Amy Wimmer via Callers" 
> mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> I kinda like suns and moons better than lots of the other alternatives, for 
> the same reasons Susan lists. Also, there's Sun Dance and Moon Dance, by 
> Robert Cromartie: gents swing in Sun Dance and ladies swing in Moon Dance. A 
> precedence, perhaps?
> 
> -Amy
> 
> 
> 
> On May 29, 2015, at 8:00 AM, susanelberger via Callers 
> mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> 
> wrote:
> 
>> I have used suns and moons for years, and prefer them because they have one 
>> syllable each, sound completely different from each other, and are easy for 
>> the dancers to remember.  I have never had any issue arise about gender bias 
>> from them.  The conversation about which gems to use does seem a bit too 
>> overthought to me.
>> 
>> Susan Elberger
>> Lowell, Massachusetts
>> 
>> From: Delia Clark via Callers > >
>> To: "> >" > > 
>> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 6:52 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?
>> 
>> Okay, this conversation, plus the lunch table at the Puttin’ On the Dance 
>> Conference in Ottawa are FINALLY getting me to give up clinging to moons and 
>> stars (the only non-gender term I’ve ever used, which I have liked with 
>> families and have found works well, but which I understand is too gender-y 
>> to be acceptable as the solution we’re looking for - dang!). I am herewith 
>> committing to trying out Jets and Rubies next weekend at a dance I’m calling 
>> for a wedding of two women. Will report back.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On May 29, 2015, at 1:56 AM, P. Campbell via Callers 
>>> mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>> 
>> I like jets & rubies (and have used the terms) for a number of reasons. 
>> (Don't like gems for same reason about confusion).
>> 
>> In a weird way, it's close enough to "lefts & rights" for me to have no 
>> trouble remembering who's who (with rubies starting with "r"), and, 
>> (apologies to those who might be offended), because it fits the same 
>> syllables for me as "gents & ladies" (which I use for historical dance) or 
>> "men & women".
>> 
>> For some reason I just can't get a feel for larks & ravens (I have an idea 
>> of why but not worth sharing), and I'm not at all comfortable using bands & 
>> bares.
>> 
>> For me, it's whatever will be the easiest for me to remember which side is 
>> which, and if my brain is wired to think of "jets" (black color) as more 
>> masculine and "rubies" (red color) as more feminine (so easier for me to 
>> link them to left & right), that's my mental visual process. (I tried apples 
>> & oranges once with a group of kids - it was terrible because I couldn't 
>> remember which was which side - I have to have some frame of reference).
>> 
>> I think one of the reasons I have trouble with larks & ravens is because of 
>> having learned a foreign language that has a gender for nouns, and I want to 
>> make larks the right side and ravens the left, but then the syllable 
>> structure doesn't work for me. 
>> 
>> My 2 cents.
>> 
>> Patricia
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On May 28, 2015, at 3:51 PM, Alan Winston via Callers 
>> mail

Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?

[susanelberger via Callers]

I do wonder whether this horse has been beaten to death.  I doubt that there 
will be agreement, and that's fine.  The topic has been on the list several 
times, and yes, I know I can ignore the postings, but enough seems to be more 
than enough.


  From: Ron Blechner 
 To: Amy Wimmer  
Cc: susanelberger ; callers 
 
 Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:10 PM
 Subject: Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?
   
Care to branch off non-jet/ruby terms to a new email please?On May 29, 2015 
2:45 PM, "Amy Wimmer via Callers"  wrote:



I kinda like suns and moons better than lots of the other alternatives, for the 
same reasons Susan lists. Also, there's Sun Dance and Moon Dance, by Robert 
Cromartie: gents swing in Sun Dance and ladies swing in Moon Dance. A 
precedence, perhaps?
-Amy



On May 29, 2015, at 8:00 AM, susanelberger via Callers 
 wrote:


I have used suns and moons for years, and prefer them because they have one 
syllable each, sound completely different from each other, and are easy for the 
dancers to remember.  I have never had any issue arise about gender bias from 
them.  The conversation about which gems to use does seem a bit too overthought 
to me.
Susan ElbergerLowell, Massachusetts
  From: Delia Clark via Callers 
 To: ""  
 Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 6:52 AM
 Subject: Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?
   
Okay, this conversation, plus the lunch table at the Puttin’ On the Dance 
Conference in Ottawa are FINALLY getting me to give up clinging to moons and 
stars (the only non-gender term I’ve ever used, which I have liked with 
families and have found works well, but which I understand is too gender-y to 
be acceptable as the solution we’re looking for - dang!). I am herewith 
committing to trying out Jets and Rubies next weekend at a dance I’m calling 
for a wedding of two women. Will report back.




On May 29, 2015, at 1:56 AM, P. Campbell via Callers 
 wrote:

I like jets & rubies (and have used the terms) for a number of reasons. (Don't 
like gems for same reason about confusion).
In a weird way, it's close enough to "lefts & rights" for me to have no trouble 
remembering who's who (with rubies starting with "r"), and, (apologies to those 
who might be offended), because it fits the same syllables for me as "gents & 
ladies" (which I use for historical dance) or "men & women".
For some reason I just can't get a feel for larks & ravens (I have an idea of 
why but not worth sharing), and I'm not at all comfortable using bands & bares.
For me, it's whatever will be the easiest for me to remember which side is 
which, and if my brain is wired to think of "jets" (black color) as more 
masculine and "rubies" (red color) as more feminine (so easier for me to link 
them to left & right), that's my mental visual process. (I tried apples & 
oranges once with a group of kids - it was terrible because I couldn't remember 
which was which side - I have to have some frame of reference).
I think one of the reasons I have trouble with larks & ravens is because of 
having learned a foreign language that has a gender for nouns, and I want to 
make larks the right side and ravens the left, but then the syllable structure 
doesn't work for me. 
My 2 cents.
Patricia



Sent from my iPhone
On May 28, 2015, at 3:51 PM, Alan Winston via Callers 
 wrote:


 

 
 On 5/28/15 12:30 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote:
  
 
For those interested in gender free contra dance terms:1. Do you like or 
dislike jets / rubies ?

 Like. (I'm responding on personal preference alone; I'm aware of some 
objections to this, which I don't personally share.)
 
 
 2. How would gems / rubies compare? 
 
 Less good, because the soft "ms" would make the call less clear.  Also, rubies 
_are_ gems, so this is confusing.
 
 -- Alan
 
___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net


<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>
Delia ClarkPO Box 45Taftsville, VT 05073802-457-2075deliacla...@gmail.com




___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net


   

___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net


___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

" I haven't enjoyed the "gender neutral" dance events"

With utmost respect, then discussing gender neutral terms is probably not
so relevant to your interests.
On May 29, 2015 7:00 PM, "Neal Schlein via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Okay, this is from a square dance/contra caller: I'd go crazy if I was
> stuck with a single set of terms, no matter what they were.  The rhyming
> potential for the calls is lost.
>
> Anyway, I still think it is more than just a matter of terminology.
>
> All we are doing is swapping words; everyone knows they are stand-ins and
> what they are stand-ins for.  In essence, we are just obscuring the
> original choreographic intent of gendered figures and dances, not calling
> gender neutral dances.  (Plus, anything written within the last 30 years is
> a copyrighted work and technically we require permission to make changes,
> perform it publicly, OR make derivative works.  Not that anyone really
> cares.)
>
> Personally, I haven't enjoyed the "gender neutral" dance events I've been
> to--not because I think it's a bad idea or dislike dancing with men, but
> because the callers were taking historical dances with built-in and
> intentional gender differences and simply ignoring them.  Particularly in
> older ECD, it is one thing to intentionally dance the lady's role and
> another to ignore that there WAS a role.  It impoverishes the dance as a
> whole.
>
> Some older dances happen to work well as gendered or ungendered dances,
> but to me a truly gender-neutral dance is constructed to intentionally be
> that way.  For example, the following:
>
> Gender-Swapped
> By Neal Schlein, 5/29/15
> Duple gender-less contra
> Music: Probably something highly phrased, like Irish
> A1: 1's step into center and handy hand turn neighbor 2 times
> A1: End with everyone facing down the hall, 4 in line, and go down the hall
> A2: Face the center of the line, pass thru, leads u-Turn and swing, any
> type (end in same spot where started swing, 1's on outside, facing up the
> hall)
> B1: Come up the hall
> B1: Bend the line and circle full
> B2: 1's gypsy full and slow cast down while the 2's gypsy or swing 1 and
> 1/2 to end in starting line; 1s come into the center.
>
> It's not the best timing in the B2, but if I did that right
>
>- With improper and gendered lines, it dances normally the first time
>through--standard swings, everything.  The second time, the 1's will be on
>the opposite side of the set, meaning half of the dance is same-gender and
>half is opposite.
>- With PROPER gendered lines, that is exactly reversed.
>- With gender-neutral lines--it is completely random, but it doesn't
>matter because...
>
> The dance itself is gender-neutral: it doesn't need gender or
> gender-substitute terms for teaching any of the figures or the sequence in
> any formation.  The choreography was selected to force interaction of
> identical sorts with all participating genders and positions.
>
> .
>
> Neal Schlein
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>